51–60 of 170 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which means that authorities can force the providers to inject public keys into the directory services, thus allowing the authorities access to the cleartext. End-to-end is a buzz word. What is important is key distribution, which is set to be subverted by governments everywhere...
Don't think they will deploy great firewall for blocking telegram which operate from offshore.
And here is the natural born right to privacy that Americans have, as well as the rest of the world in my own opinion: Bill of Rights, amendment 4: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the…
It's a nice right in theory, but in reality, stop-and-frisk, border control, parallel construction, 'I smelled weed in the car', 'I had a hunch', 'the drug dog gave me a signal', 'we got an anonymous tip (from an illegal search, via parallel construction)' all exist, and are regularly employed in the United States. They also tend to be disproportionately targeted at particular, inconvenient, segments of the populatio…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a nice right in theory, but in reality, stop-and-frisk, border control, parallel construction, 'I smelled weed in the car', 'I had a hunch', 'the drug dog gave me a signal', 'we got an anonymous tip (from an illegal search, via parallel construction)' all exist, and are regularly employed in the United States. They also tend to be disproportionately targeted at particular, inconvenient, segments of the populatio…
And when those phenomena are fought, it is on the basis of the Constitution.
The constitutionality of a law is a political red herring. My favorite example of this is gay marriage. All the way between 1776 and 2015 it was illegal - yet somehow, magically, in 2015, banning it became unconstitutional.
Did the Constitution change in 2015, without us noticing? Did the lawyers advocating for it figure out some sequence of utterances that made a lightbulb go off in the heads of the judges?
No. What happened is public opinion changed.
The constitution gives you theoretical rights. Whether or not you actually have any of them is a direct product of what the public thinks of you
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don't think they will deploy great firewall for blocking telegram which operate from offshore.
I dont know why people bring up telegram. A vast majority of chat messages is sent directly in the clear to Telegram servers. Telegram can spy on your conversations. If they can, anyone can. It is NOT an encrypted messenger. It is a crappy plaintext messenger that has an encrypted feature that nobody uses. Also - Stop using telegram. IT IS NOT ENCRYPTED LIKE YOU AND YOUR FRIENDS THINK IT IS.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And when those phenomena are fought, it is on the basis of the Constitution.
The success of fighting it only works as well as 'where does public opinion on the issue currently lie'. The constitutionality of a law is a political red herring. My favorite example of this is gay marriage. All the way between 1776 and 2015 it was illegal - yet somehow, magically, in 2015, banning it became unconstitutional. Did the Constitution change in 2015, without us noticing? Did the lawyers advocating for it…
Does using an app like cloudflare 1.1.1.1 protect us from this ? Cloudflare app link - https://blog.cloudflare.com/1-thing-you-can-do-to-make-your-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The success of fighting it only works as well as 'where does public opinion on the issue currently lie'. The constitutionality of a law is a political red herring. My favorite example of this is gay marriage. All the way between 1776 and 2015 it was illegal - yet somehow, magically, in 2015, banning it became unconstitutional. Did the Constitution change in 2015, without us noticing? Did the lawyers advocating for it…
I always found it weird how people starting thinking gay marriage should be legal, when in fact it should just be protected under the first amendment all along. It's almost like people don't understand their first amendment rights, and never thought to apply it to gay marriage.
But, what happens if we figure out that the rights we currently enjoy are, in fact, not protected by the constitution?
This hammer swings both ways. There's a big, nasty, vaguely-defined "unreasonable" word in "unreasonable search and seizure."
Who defines what is "unreasonable"? And what are the odds that their definition will agree with what HN thinks is "unreasonable"?
I can completely see a court, in 2021, argue with a straight face, that a ban on "unreasonable search and seizure" does not protect you against .
Earlier quoted context omitted.
...and 7 years of prison if the service provider does not hand the authorities the encryption keys... MITM for iMessage, Whatsapp etc seems to be guaranteed here.
> Whatsapp etc seems to be guaranteed here It is end to end encrypted